Sunday, July 6, 2014

Franciscans of the Immaculate are not obliged to follow the Letter of the Holy Office's factual mistake

There is a factual mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office , an irrationality which Catholics are not obliged to follow.1

The Letter assumes that salvation in Heaven is visible to us.Then these 'physically visible' cases are assumed to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead.

This is also the common irrational premise ( visible -dead theory) which is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Lumen Gentium 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) is considered to be an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation). LG 16 it is assumed refers to salvation which is visible for us.

The Franciscans of the Immaculate must reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and its irrational reasoning. Then there would be no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Similarly there would be no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. NA 2,UR 3, LG 16,LG 8,AG 11 etc would not contradict Tradition. It would rationally refer to implicit ( physically invisible) salvation in Heaven.It would not be a reference to explicit salvation in Heaven, visible in the flesh.This is an irrationality. It is upon this irrationality that the liberals and the Vatican Curia have built their theology.Reject the premise and the theology and ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is traditional.

Aside from the factual error another reason for rejecting the Letter of the Holy Office is because of irregularities. 2.

Another fact left unstated in your article is that the letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing was not an official Act of the Apostolic See, for it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis itself. Every author who has written ex professo on the subject has commented upon this mysterious fact. In consequence, the Jesuit Karl Rahner later had to invent a special category in order to provide an excuse for inserting the letter in Denzinger’s Enchiridion. The controversial missive was not put in Denzinger until 1963, the year Rahner retired as editor. We can logically assume that in 1962 (while preparing the 1963 edition) his coup de grace was to insert the unqualified document to stand where it ought not (“he that readeth, let him understand”), and then bow out without taking responsibility. And, are you aware what was (and still is) the “source” Denzinger’s compilation gives for the Holy Office letter? The American Ecclesiastical Review! These revealing facts are essential to an unbiased consideration of the case.